Politensess Principle(外语学习).ppt

7/30/2019 Politensess Principle( ).ppt

1/58

1

1. Face and Politeness

2. Politeness Principle


2/58

2

Pragmatic study of politeness

Questions for reflection: 1. How important do you think politeness is ?

2. What do you think the relationship should politeness and cooperative

principles be ?

politeness---Leech

Face-saving theory--- Brown and Levinson : rational language user

Almost all the speech acts are face-threatening. Politenessstrategy todiminish.

Grices CP oblique (obliquity)

Politeness: semantic content (costbenefit) and expression (direct andindirect)


3/58

3

The concept offace is not new to Asian readers, who willrecognize the term mianzi in Mandarin, where it carries arange of meanings based upon a core concept of "honor,"

The American sociologist Erving Goffman based much of

his work on interpersonal relationships on the concept of face.

A: Bill, thats a great idea. Could you write up a one-pagesummary for tomorrows board meeting?

B: Of course, Mr Hutchins. Should I have it translated? A: Youd better ask Jane. Shell know just who will be there.

(p16)


4/58

4

Within sociological and sociolinguistic studies

face is usually given the following general

definition: "Face is the negotiated public

image, mutually granted each other by

participants in a communicative event."


5/58

5

The Paradox of Face: Involvement and Independence

really a paradoxical concept. in contrast. On the one hand, in humaninteractions we have a need to be involved with other participants and toshow them our involvement. On the other hand, we need to maintain somedegree of independence from other participants and to show them that werespect their independence. These two sides of face, produce an inherently

paradoxical situation in all communications, in that both aspects of facemust be projected simultaneously in any communication.

The involvement aspect of face is concerned with the person's right and

need to be considered a normal, contributing, or supporting member ofsociety. This involvement is shown through being a normal andcontributing participant in communicative events. One shows involvement

by taking the point of view of other participants, by supporting them in the

views they take, and by any other means that demonstrates that the speakerwishes to uphold a commonly created view of the world.


6/58

6

Involvement is shown by such discourse strategies as paying attention toothers, showing a strong interest in their affairs, pointing out common ingroup membership or points of view with them, or using first names. As we

will indicate below, we might say such things as, "Are you feeling welltoday?," or, "I know just what you mean, the same thing happened to meyesterday," or, "Yes, I agree, I've always believed that, too." Any indicationthat the speaker is asserting that he or she is closely connected to the hearermay be considered a strategy of involvement. Many other terms have beenused in the sociolinguistic literature to present this concept. It has beencalled positive face, for example, on the basis of the idea of the positive

and negative poles of magnetism. The positive poles of a magnet attract,and by analogy involvement has been said to be the aspect ofcommunication in which two or more participants show their commonattraction to each other.

Involvement has also been called solidarity politeness; again, for thereason that sociolinguists want to emphasize that this aspect of face shows

what participants have in common. Any of these terms might be acceptablein some contexts, but we feel that the term "involvement" is clearest andcreates the fewest analytical complications for the reader.


7/58

7

The independence aspect of face emphasizes the individualityof the participants. It emphasizes their right not to be

completely dominated by group or social values, and to be freefrom the impositions of others. Independence shows that a

person may act with some degree of autonomy and that he orshe respects the rights of others to their own autonomy andfreedom of movement or choice.

Independence is shown by such discourse strategies asmaking minimal assumptions about the needs or interests ofothers, by not "putting words into their mouths," by givingothers the widest range of options, or by using more formalnames and titles. For example, in ordering in a restaurant we

might say, "I don't know if you will want to have rice ornoodles," or in making the initial suggestion to go out forcoffee we might say, "I'd enjoy going out for coffee, but Iimagine you are very busy." The key to independence facestrategies is that they give or grant independence to the hearer.


8/58

8

Independence has also been given various other names by researchers insociolinguistics. It has been called negative politeness, as an analogy withthe negative poleof a magnet, which repels. We prefer not to use this term,

because technical or formal contrast between "positive" and "negative" can

easily be forgotten and readers can too easily begin to think of "positivepoliteness" as good and "negative politeness" as bad. Another term whichhas been used as an attempt to get around the potential negative aspects of"positive" and "negative" politeness has been "deference politeness." Wehave used "solidarity" and "deference" in earlier writings, but find thatsome readers have a strong preference for one type of strategy or the otherand, again, miss the point that both aspects of face must be projectedsimultaneously in any communication.

The most important concept to remember about face is that it isparadoxical. It is always a matter of more or less, not absolute expressionof just one or the other. A speaker must find just the right way of sayingsomething which shows the degree to which he or she is involving the other

participants and the degree to which he or she is granting independence tothem.


9/58

9

The reason involvement and independence are in conflict is thatemphasizing one of them risks a threat to the other. If I show you too muchinvolvement, you are likely to feel that your independence is being

threatened. On the other hand if I grant you too much independence, youare likely to feel that I have limited your involvement.

Any communication is a riskto face; it is a risk to one's own face at thesame time it is a risk to the other person's. We have to carefully project aface for ourselves and to respect the face rights and claims of other

participants. We risk our own involvement face if we do not include otherparticipants in our relationship. That is, if we exclude others, while that

may increase our own independence, it at the same time decreases our owninvolvement. At the same time, if we include others, we risk our ownindependence face.

Looking at it from the other person's point of view, if we give too muchinvolvement to the other person, we risk their independence face. On theother hand if we give them too much independence, we risk their

involvement. The result of the double risk, the risk to involvement face and the risk to

independence face of both the speaker and the hearer, means, therefore,that all communication has to be carefully phrased to respect face, bothinvolvement face and independence face. This could be said another way:"There is no faceless communication."


10/58

10

Face and Politeness

As a technical term, face means the public self-image of aperson. It refers to that emotional and social sense ofselfthateveryone has and expects everyone else to recognize.

Politeness, in an interaction, can then be defined as the meansemployed to show awareness ofanotherpersons face. In thissense, politeness can be accomplished in situations of socialdistance or closeness. Showing awareness for another personsface when the other seems socially distant is often describedin terms of respect or deference. Showing the equivalentawareness when the other is socially close is often described interms of friendliness, camaraderie, or solidarity.


11/58

11

Face and Politeness

(1) Face wants: face threatening act & face saving act?a. The man: Im going to tell him to stop that awful noise right now!

b. The woman: Perhaps you could just ask him if he is going to stop

soon because it's getting a bit late and people need to get to sleep.

(2) Negative face and positive face

Negative face: need to be independent, to have the freedom of

action, and not to be imposed on by others.

positive face: need to be accepted, even liked, by others, to be

treated as a member of the same group, and to know that his

wants are shared by others.

In simple terms, negative face---independent

positive face---connected.


12/58

12

(3) Negative politeness and positive politeness

A face saving act which it is oriented to the persons negative face will tend to

show deference, emphasize the importance of the others time or concern, and

even include an apology for the imposition or interruption --- negativepoliteness (social distance). A face saving act which it is concerned with the

persons postive face will tend to show solidarity, emphasize that both

speakers want the same thing, and that they have a common goal---positive

politeness----- speech strategies that emphasize our solidarity with the

hearer,

Nicknames, slang, shared dialect, informal pronunciation, and more frequent

use reference to speaker and hearer as we tend to be avoided and request tend

to be more indirect and impersonal, often involving Could you.. OrCould I ask

you to

a. Gotta stapler you can lend me?

b. Could you lend me your staper?

a. orients to ?b. orients to ?


13/58

13

Say something: off and on record

a. Uh, I forgot my pen.

b. Hmm, I wonder where I put my pen.

----- off recordhints, an off record statement may or may notsucceed.

Directly address --- on record, --- imperative forms--- bald on record.

a. Give me a pen

b. Lend me your pen.

Please, possibly, might, Im sorry, but, Would you? --- mitigating devices.

a. Have some more cake.

b. Gimme that wet umbrella.

If you had to evacuate a burning building would you say,

Fire, get out (of here)! orFire, might I ask you toleave the building?


14/58

14

negative politeness strategy. (modal verb)

a. Could you lend me a pen?

b. Im sorry to bother you, but can I ask you for a pen or

something?c. I know youre busy, but might I ask you if em-if you

happen to have an extra pen that I could, you know-eh-maybe

borrow?


15/58

15

Examples

Excuse me, Mr Buckingham, but can I talk to you for a minute? Hey, Bucky, got a minute?

On Nathan Road in Tsim Sha Tsui, one of Hong Kongs most

crowded tourist and shopping areas, two men passed by avendor of imitation Rolex watches.

Vendor (to the first man -- yong): Eh! Copy watch?

Vendor (to the second man in mid-fifties, dress formally):

Rolex? Sir?

a. How about letting me use your pen?

b. Hey, buddy, Id appriceate it if youd let me use your pen.


16/58

16

In each of the following dialogues, there are three alternative responses for

the second speaker. Put them in increasing order of politeness. 1. Meridyth: Well, Ive done it. Ive dyed my hair blonde.

Ed: (a) You look beautiful.

(b) You look awful.

(c) You look amazing.

2. Tom: Do you like the wine I picked out?

Gabriela: (a) Its Italian, isnt it?

(b) Yes, I do.

(c) Not really.

3. Jean: What did the students say about my teaching?

Linda: (a) Lets hope none of them are lawyers.

(b) Some of students were very positive. (c) Pretty bad.

4. A: What do you think of Harry?

B: Nothing wrong with him.


17/58

17

Linguistic strategies of involvement: some examples There are many ways in which involvement can be shown through linguistic form. The

examples which follow have been selected from English. The examples here will give you ageneral idea of linguistic strategies of involvement.

1 Notice or attend to H:

"I like your jacket."

"Are you feeling better today?"

2 Exaggerate (interest, approval, sympathy with H):

"You always doso well in school."

3 Claim in-group membership with H: "All ofushere at City Polytechnic..."

4 Claim common point of view, opinions, attitudes, knowledge, empathy:

"I know just how you feel. I had a cold like that last week."

5 Be optimistic:

"I think we should be able to finish that annual report very quickly."

6 Indicate S knows H's wants and is taking them into account:

"I'm sure you will all want to know when this meeting will be over." 7 Assume or assert reciprocity:

"I know you want to do well in sales this year as much as I want you to do well."

8 Use given names and nicknames:

"Bill, can you get that report to me by tomorrow?"

9 Be voluble.

10 Use H's language or dialect.


18/58

18

Linguistic strategies of independence: some examples

As in the case of involvement, there are many ways in which independence can be

reflected linguistically. The ten types below have been selected from among the mostcommon used in English. Again, "H" refers to the "Hearer" and "S" to the "Speaker."

1 Make minimal assumptions about H's wants:

"I don't know if you will want to send this by air mail or by speedpost."

2 Give H the option not to do the act:

"It would be nice to have tea together, but I am sure you are very busy."

3 Minimize threat:

"I just need to borrow a little piece of paper, any scrap will do." 4 Apologize:

"I'm sorry to trouble you, could you tell me the time?"

5 Be pessimistic:

"I don't suppose you'd know the time, would you?"

6 Dissociate S, H from the discourse:

"This is to inform our employees that..."

7 State a general rule:

"Company regulations require an examination..."

8 Use family names and titles:

"Mr Lee, there's a phone call for you."

9 Be taciturn.

10 Use own language or dialect.


19/58

19

Politeness PrincipleAdvocated by Leech (1983). Some illocutions (orders) are inherently impolite, and

others (offers) are inherently impolite (1983:83). abstract quality, without regard for the

particular circumstances that govern their use --- contextual factors that define what is

polite in a given situation (Mey, 2003:80).

Minimize (mitigate) the effects of impolite statements or expressions (negative

politeness) and to maximize the politenss of polite illocutions (positive politeness). e.g.

Parent: Someones eaten the icing off the cake. (You have eaten the icing off the cake.)

Child: It wasnt ME.

Not informative or not relevant, still obeys the Politeness Principle, and thus is able to

rescue the Cooperative Principle from serious trouble.

A: Well all miss Bill and Agatha, wont we?

B: Well, well miss BILL.

invoked politeness, not cooperation. Cooperation takes a back seat to politeness: sins

against the maxim of quantity, but does so for reasons of politeness.


20/58

20

Leechs Politeness Principle is supposed to collaborate

with, and even rescue, the Cooperative Principle and

its associated maxims. The explanatory value of a

InterpersonalRhetoric of which Grice's CP is just

one component.


21/58

21

2. Politeness Principle

Quotations (from Peccei:60) 1. Rude I am in speech and little blessed with the sofst phrase

of peace. (Shakespeare, Othello, Act 1, Scene 2)

2. A child who is not allowed to say anything but No, thankyou at home, will not mortify his mother in public byscreaming I hate steak, I want ice-cream! (Emily Post,

Etiquette, 1922)

3. Instancing the rudeness of waiters, Andrew Billen quotedone as saying I dont know, can you? in reply to his question,

can we order now?. If Mr. Billen had been taught goodmanners as a child, he would have asked May we ordernow?.. Mr. Billen should learn proper manners himself beforecomplaining about the lack of niceness in others. (Letter to theeditor of the Evening Standard, 25 November 1998)


22/58

22

Indirect directive: Well, I really must get on

with my work now ---- Go home


23/58

23

Discussion

The host to a guest. Rearrage, starting with the least polite.Think about what made some of these utterances seem morepolite than others.

(a) Take a look at this.

(b) Clean up the kithcen floor.

(c) Pass the salt.

(d) Have some more cake.

(e) Peel these potatoes.

(a) Could I possibly ask you to set the table?

(b) Set the table.

(c) Can you set the table?


24/58

24

Politeness Principle

The six maxims of the PP tend to go in pairsas follows:

(1) Tact maxim () (2) Generosity maxim() (3) Approbation Maxim (4) Modesty maxim (5) Agreement maxim (6) Sympathy maxim


25/58

25

politeness concerns a relationship between two participants whom we may call selfand

other. In conversation, self will normally be identified with s, and other will typically

be identified with h. All of them come under the PP. The first four maxims go in pairs

because they deal with bipolar scales: the cost-benefit and praise-dispraise scales.

The other two maxims deal with unipolar scales: the scales of agreement and sympathy.

beneficiary: the receiver of a benefit or advantage

benefactor:person who does sth for good purpose

Not all of the maxims and sub-maxims are equally important. Of the twinned maxims()-(), () appears to be a more powerful constraint on conversational behaviour

than (), and () than (). This, if true, reflects a more general law that politeness

is focused more strongly on other than on self.


26/58

26

Moreover, within each maxim, sub-maxim (b) seems to be less

important than sub-maxim (a), and this again illustrates the more

general law that negative politeness (avoidance of discord) is

more weighty consideration than positive politeness (seeking

concord). One further difference in importance should be noted,

although it is not reflected in the form of the maxims: politeness

towards an addressee is generally more important than politeness

towards a third party.


27/58

27

Once more we should bear in mind that these maxims areobserved "up to a certain point," rather than as absolute rules.It is particularly important to remember this with the weakersub-maxims, those in square brackets, such as "Maximize

dispraise of self." A person who continually seeksopportunities for self denigration quickly becomes tedious, andmore importantly, will be judged insincere. In this way the CP(Maxim of Quality) restrains us from being too modest.


28/58

28

Politeness Principle ---- Tact maxim

(1) Tact maxim ()(in impositives and commissives)(a) Minimize cost to other [(b) Maximize benefit to

other]

Would it be possible for you to lend me your car?

Could you lend me your car?

Will you lend me your car?

Lend me your car!

*You must lend me your car.


29/58

29

PP --- Generosity maxim

(2) Generosity maxim (in impositives and commissives)

(a) Minimize benefit to self [(b) Maximize cost to self]

*You must have another sandwich.Do have anther sandwich!

Please have anther sandwich!

Would you like to have anther sandwich?

*Would it be possible for you to have anther sandwich?

*Would you mind having anther sandwich?


30/58

30

I have already mentioned the bilateral aspect of impositive andcommissive speech acts. Bilaterality means that in practice,

there is little need to distinguish the "other-centred" Maxim ofTact from the "self-centred" Maxim of Generosity. Theasymmetry of (1) and (2) or of (3) and (4), for example, can beexplained in terms of either of these maxims:

(1) *You can lend me your car. (2) I can lend you my car.

(3) You must come and have dinner with us.

(4) *We must come and have dinner with you.

Which utterance in the pair is polite?

You can get them for less than half the price at the market. ?


31/58

31

An impositive can be softened, and thereby made more polite, by omission of reference to thecost to h.

(1) Could I borrow this electric drill?

is marginally more polite than

Could you lend me this electric drill?

(2) I wouldn't mind a cup of coffee

is marginally more polite than

Could you spare me a cup of coffee?

There is a converse tendency to suppress s's part of the transaction in commissives:

(3) You could borrow my bicycle, if you like

(cf. I could lend you my bicycle, if you like).

(4) Would you like these pencils sharpened?

(cf. Would you like me to sharpen these pencils?)

The playing down of s's beneficent role here is a mirror image of the strategy in (1) and (2).The idea is that it is more polite, in an offer, to make it appear that the offerer makes nosacrifice, so that in turn it can become less impolite for h to accept the offer.


32/58


33/58

33

PP ---- Approbation Maxim

(3) Approbation Maxim() (in expressives andassertives)

(a) Minimize dispraise of other [(b) Maximize praise of

other]

You are the best cook in the world.

What a marvelous cook you are!

You are really a good cook.

You certainly know something about cooking.


34/58

34

Grice gives another example of an uninformative reply: that of a personwho writes a reference for a student applying for a philosophy job:

(12) "Dear Sir, Mr. X's command of English is excellent, and

his attendance at tutorials has been regular. Yours, etc."

[Grice, 1975: 52]

In explaining the implicature of this violation of the Maxim of Quantity.Grice adds that s "... must ... be wishing to impart information that he isreluctant to write down. The supposition is tenable only on the assumptionthat he thinks Mr. X is no good at philosophy." I would add, tosupplement Grice's gloss, that s's reluctance to declare his opinion is due tothe Approbation Maxim.


35/58

35

PP ----Modesty maxim

(4) Modesty maxim (in expressives and assertives) (a) Minimize praise of self [(b) Maximize dispraise of self]

A: What a bright boy you are! You always get full marks.

B1: Thank you. I have very good teachers. B2. Thank you. The exam questions are not that hard.

B3: Thank you. But lm not the only one in the class

that gets full marks.

B4: Yes, I am, aint I?

Please accept this small gift as a token of our esteem.

*Please accept this large gift as a token of our esteem.


36/58

36

Modesty maxim -- giving advice

Some ostensibly "polite" illocutions, such as giving advice,may be judged to be impositions, requiring a preface such as

Could I suggest ... ?

Might I just give you a word of advice?

The reason for regarding advice as impolite, of course, is thatalthough the recommended action may be considered

beneficial to the addressee, the actual speech act of advisingmay offend both the Modesty and Approbation Maxims,

because it takes for granted that s is superior in knowledge, orexperience, or judgment, etc. to h.


37/58

37

PP ----Agreement maxim

(5) Agreement maxim (in assertives) (a) Minimize disagreement between self and other [(b) Maximize

agreement between self and other]

Im sorry to say.

Yes, I quite agree with you, but..

Youre absolutely/quite right, but

Youre quite right, I quite agree with you, but

A. That dress she is wearing is beautiful, dont you think?

B1: yes absolutely.

B2: Yes, I couldnt agree with you more. B3: Yes, I think so too.

B4: Well, I like the color.

B5: I dont think its beautiful at all.


38/58

38

PP ----Sympathy maxim

(6) Sympathy maxim (in assertives) (a) Minimize antipathy between self and other [(b) Maximize

sympathy between self and other]

Im sorry to hear about your cat. Im so delighted to hear about you cat.

A: I lost my kitten last week and I still cant get over it.

B1: Its most unfortunate that you lost your pet.

B2: I know what it is like. You have all my sympathy. B3: Im sorry to hear that.

B4: Never mind. You can find anther one.

B5: So we wont be annoyed by that nasty little animal any

more.


39/58

39

There is a tendency to exaggerate agreement with other

people, and to mitigate disagreement by expressing regret,partial agreement, etc. Compare the rudeness of the reply in (1)with the replies in (2) - (4):

(1) A: It was an interesting exhibition, wasn't it?

B: No, it was very uninteresting.

(2) A: A referendum will satisfy everybody.

B: Yes, definitely.

(3) A: English is a difficult language to learn.

B: True, but the grammar is quite easy.

(4) A: The book is tremendously well written.

B: Yes, well written as a whole, but there are some rather

boring patches, don't you think?


40/58

40

As (3) and (4) show, partial disagreement is often

preferable to complete disagreement. We may also add a

Maxim of Sympathy, which explains why congratulations

and condolences are courteous speech acts, even though

condolences express beliefs which are negative with regard tothe hearer:

(5) I'm terribly sorry to hear that your cat died.

This is polite, in contrast, for example, with

*I'm terribly pleased to hear that your cat died.


41/58

41

There is nevertheless some reticence about expression ofcondolences, since to refer to the propositional context X is infact to express an impolite belief in the sense of a beliefunfavourable to h. Hence it might be preferable to say, insteadof (5):

(6) I'm terribly sorry to hear about your cat.

Such is the power of the Sympathy Maxim that, withoutfurther information, we interpret (6) as a condolence, i.e., as anexpression of sympathy for misfortune, and (7) as a

congratulation:


42/58

42

(7) I'm delighted to hear about your cat.

That is, we assume that the event alluded to in (6) is

unfortunate (such as a death), and that in (7) is fortunate (such

as the winning of a prize in the cat-show). Thus, the following

exchange would be, to say the least, typical of humanconversation:

(8) A: I'm delighted to hear about your cat.

B: What do you mean? He's just died.

A: Precisely.


43/58

43

Hedged performative

stresses the inevitability of the illocution

Bringers of bad tidings may find it advisable to express boththe distasteful and the unavoidable nature of their task:

I'm sorry to have to tell you ...

We regret to have to inform you that ...

I must warn you that ...


44/58

44

Application Analyze the following utterances. What maxim does it observe or flout? (1)----GRE

----

(2) ----

-----

(3)----

----

(4) Please accept this large gift for your birthday. (5) A: The man lost his money in the street yesterday.

B: Oh, it's msot fortunate.

Analyze the pragmatic implicatureof the following utterance.

----

----

(2) ---How has your business been going on? ----There are five more helpers.

(3)----How about the lecture on phonetics?

----The hall is really magnificant.

(From Ran Yongping, 2006:70-1)


45/58

45

A A

m, go-rippa na o-niwa de My, what a splendid garden

gozmasu wa n. shibafu ga you have here the lawn is so

hirobiro to shite ite, kekk de nice and big, it's certainly

gozmasu wa n. wonderful, isn't it!

B B iie, nan desu ka, chitto mo Oh no, not at all, we don't

teire ga yukitodokimasen mono take care of it at all any more,

de gozaimasu kara, m, so it simply doesn't always look

nakanaka itsumo kirei ni shite as nice as we would like it to.

oku wake ni wa mairimasen no

de gozmasu yo.

A A , sai de gozaimash n. kore Oh no, I don't think so at all

dake o-hiroin de gozmasu kara, but since it's such a big garden, of

hitotri o-teire asobasu no ni date course, it must be quite a

taihen de gozaimash n. demo tremendous task to take care of it

m, sore de mo, itsumo yoku all by yourself; but even so, you

o-teire ga yukitodoite irasshaimasu certainly do manage to make it

wa. itsuno honto ni o-kirei de look nice all the time: it certainly

kekk de gozmasu wa. is nice and pretty any time one sees it.

B B

iie, chitto mo sonna koto No. I'm afraid not, not at all ...

gazmasen wa.


46/58

46

Modesty Maxim

It appears that in Japanese society, and more

particularly among Japanese women (see Miller, ibid.:

290), the Modesty Maxim is more powerful than it is

as a rule in English-speaking societies; where itwould be customarily more polite to accept a

compliment "graciously" (e. g., by thanking the

speaker for it) rather than to go on denying it. Here

English-speakers would be inclined to find somecompromise between violating the Modesty Maxim

and violating the Agreement Maxim.


47/58

47

Modesty Maxim

There is an obvious trade-offbetween different maxims of the PP, just asthere is between the maxims of the CP. The Modesty Maxim sometimescomes into conflict with some other maxim, in which case we have toallow one maxim to take priority over the other. In (17), for example, Badheres to the Agreement Maxim at the expense of the ModestyMaxim,but in this situation the Modesty Maxim plainly carries greaterweight. In the Japanese conversation above, A partially agrees with B over

the workentailed by the garden, but then reiterates her compliment. Inoffering food to a guest, a Japanese may say Ohitotsu dzo [literally"Please (have) one '], thereby apparently minimizing generosity. But thismay be seen as a result of attaching greater importance to modesty: to offermore than one is to suggest that one's food is worth eating. In contrast,an English-speaking host might well be considered niggardly if he passed

round the peanut-bowl with the words: Have a peanut!


48/58

48

It is normally considered to be more polite to offer a large quantity: Have as many as you like.

The greater value attached to the Modesty maxim in Japanese culture isindicated further by the greater degree of understatement employed ingiving presents. Whereas an English person may [as in (20)] call his gift"small," the Japanese may go further, and say

"This is a gift which will be of no use to you, but ... "

A host may even go to the extreme of denying the existence of the food heis offering:

Nani mo (meshiagaru mono wa) ari-masen ga, dozo

"There is nothing (to eat), but please ... "

In this way, a maxim of politeness may overrule the Maxim of Quality.


49/58

49

Other principles

1. Irony Principlewhich enables a speaker to be impolite while seeming to be polite; it does so by

superficially breaking the CP, but ultimately upholding it. Apparently, then, the IP is

dys-functional, if the PP promotes a bias towards comity rather than conflict in social

relations, the IP, by enabling us to bypass politeness, promotes the "antisocial" use of

language. We are ironic at someone's expense, scoring offothers by politeness that is

obviously insincere, as a substitute for impoliteness.

We are ironic at someones expense, scoring off others by politeness that isobviously insincere, as a substitute for impoliteness. The insincerity may be more or

less obvious; it may take the form of a breach of the Maxim of Quantity), or more often

of a breach of the Maxim of Quality:

() That's all I wanted!

() With friends like him, who needs enemies?() Bill wanted that news like he wanted a hole in the head.

In () and (3), the Maxim of Quality is infringed by implicature rather than by

direct statement. But the insincerity of s's purported opinion is clear from its absurdity.


50/58

50

Banter Principle ()the type of verbal behaviour known as "banter" is an offensive way of

being friendly (mock-impoliteness). For example, in a game of chess, one

person may say jokingly to another:

What a mean cowardly trick! referring to a particular clevergambit.

Here comes trouble! or Look what the cats brought in!

"In order to show solidarity with h, say something which is (i) obviously untrue, and (ii) obviously impolite to h. the more intimate the relationship, the less important it is to be polite.Hence lack of politeness in itself can become a sign of intimacy; and hence,

the ability to be impolite to someone injest helps to establish and maintain

such a familiar relationship. The implicature derived from the Banter Principle

is just the opposite of that derived from the IP (see p. 83):


51/58

51

Bantermock-irony

A fine friend YOU are!, said jokingly (say) to a partnerwho has given away an advantage in a card game.

(i) You are a fine friend. (face-value)(ii) By which I mean that you are NOT a fine friend. (Irony

Principle)

(iii) But actually, you ARE my friend, and to show it, I am being

impolite to you. (Banter Principle)


52/58

52

Hyperbole and Litotes

Two ways of violating the CP which deserve separate consideration areHYPERBOLE (overstatement) and LITOTES (understatement).

Hyperbole refers to a case where the speakers description is strongerthan is warranted by the state of affairs described, and litotes refers to theconverse of this. A hyperbole such as It made my blood boil constitutes a

violation, in some degree, of the Maxim of Quality, and a litotes such as Iwasnt born yesterday constitutes in some degree a violation of the Maximof Quantity.

the justification for hyperbole and litotes is politeness. There will naturallybe a preference for overstating polite beliefs, and for understating impolite

ones: while an exaggeration such as That was a delicious meal! isfavoured in praising others, an uninformative deniala typical device ofunderstatementis frequently used in criticism: I wasnt overimpressed

by her speech.


53/58

53

But not all cases of hyperbole and litotes can be explained byreference to their role in enhancing politeness.

The frequency of overstatement in ordinary conversation hasits testimony in many idiomatic expressions, as in Her eyesnearly popped out of her headIt makes my blood boil

He was all ears , Thatll cost the earth ; I hve beenworking my fingers to the bone , etc.

Im completely brokeTheres absolutely nothing on thetelly this evening. Almost all these examples make reference

to an absurdly extremeposition on a scale; e.g., Her eyesnearly popped out of her head refers to the highestconceivable point on a scale of surprise, and It made my

blood boil refers to the highest conveivable point on a scaleof anger.


54/58

54

This states that people will prefer to look on the bright siderather than on the gloomy side of life, thus resembling theoptimistic heroine of Eleanor H. Porter's novel Pollyanna(1913). Interpreting it in a communicative framework as aPollyanna Principle means postulating that participants in aconversation will prefer pleasant topics of conversation to

unpleasant ones. The negative aspect of this principle is, ofcourse, EUPHEMISM: one can disguise unpleasant subjectsby referring to them by means of apparently inoffensiveexpressions (e. g., workers are made redundant instead of

being dismissed). But another aspect is the tendency tounderstate the degree to which things are bad. Thus theminimizing adverbials of degree a bit, a little, and a little bitare specialized towards negatively evaluated terms:

(39) The paint was a bit dirty.

(40) *The paint was a bit clean.


55/58

55

Another restriction, which seems to have become institutionalized ingrammar, is that a bit and a little can occur with the negatively evaluativeadverb too, but not with the positively evaluative adverb enough:

(41) She is a little too young for the job.

(42) *She is a little young enough for the job.

Another adverb which often implicates a negative evaluation is rather,which again tends to add a downtoning effect to the term it modifies:

(43) The employees were rather unenthusiastic about the move.

(44) The employees were rather enthusiastic about the move.

Although both (43) and (44) are perfectly grammatical, (44) ispragmatically abnormal in comparison with (43). A third technique forunderstating pessimistic evaluation is the one we have already observed --the use ofnegation:


56/58

56

(45) The meeting was not particularly well attended.

(46) *The meeting was notparticularly badly attended.

As a negative proposition is assumed to deny a positiveexpectation, (45) takes as its norm the corresponding positiveproposition The meeting was particularly well attended.Hence even if the meeting had been quite well attended, itwould be truthful to assert (45). In this way, theunderstatement disguises a bad report in a form which on theface of it permits a good interpretation. The unfavourableinterpretation is arrived at indirectly, by implicature, and isthus weakened. The opposite proposition (46) is pragmaticallyless favoured, because it runs counter to the PollyannaPrinciple. It would occur only in an unusual context, where for

some reason bad attendance was expected. We can see, then, that litotes is a way of underplaying

aspects of meaning which are pragmatically disfavoured. In(45), it is the pessimistic judgment that the meeting was badlyattended that is thus mitigated.


57/58

57

Litotes

In other cases, the reluctance to criticize manifests itself ininstitutionalized forms ofunderstatement:

(1) You could be more careful.

(2) Her performance was not so good as it might have been.

(3) A: Do you like these apricots? B: I've tasted better.

With reference to some scale of value, these sentences in effectsay "a higher position on the scale is possible." But where the

Approbation Maxim is in force, a failure to commit oneself toa favourable opinion implies that one cannot (truthfully) do so.In other words, the lack of praise implicates dispraise.


58/58

58

Interest principle

A conversational principle which seems to

underlie such cases is the principle which

enjoins us to

Say what is unpredictable, and hence

interesting.

Documents

Politensess Principle(外语学习).ppt